Powers of Fishery Officers

[Cabezon1]

A buddy of mine recently got board by a DFO vessel at the mouth of the North Arm and had his boat inspected. The officers asked him to open the 2 coolers he had on deck and his catches were thoroughly inspected. All were within regulation. The officers then ask him to retrieve his backpack and a small suitcase from his cabin so they can inspect that as well. The question I have is does DFO have the authority to inspect the suitcase and the backpack inside the cabin of a boat? Does that not constitute a search of a vessel instead of an inspection therefore would required a search warrant? Moreover, according to the fisheries act, " a DFO officer(a) may open any container that the officer or guardian believes on reasonable grounds contains any fish or other thing in respect of which this Act or the regulations apply"

I understand a cooler is considered a container but what about personal items such as a hand bag/back pack?

 

[scott craven]

Just to clarify, was it actually a DFO vessel or RCMP ?
Their duties on the water can cross over at times

 

[agentaqua]

My interpretation of your question would be that it would not be "reasonable" that a backback had a big stuffed salmon in it - and the prudent thing would have been to refuse to bring the backpack to the CO - and to state that consent to search was *NOT* given to the CO, and to also state the "unreasonable-ness" of that request. I would not physically restrain/inhibit/interfere the CO in any way, though. What he/she does is up to them.

However, if the CO decided to search the bag - a complaint could have been made up the line - and if anything ever came to court - I would expect that charges would be thrown-out and the CO be admonished by the judge - if his supervisor did not already do that.

 

[agentaqua]

Just to clarify, was it actually a DFO vessel or RCMP ?
Their duties on the water can cross over at times

yes - both are authorized enforcement personnel who can enforce both federal and provincial acts. Same rules around "reasonableness" apply...

 

[bgillard]

A buddy of mine recently got board by a DFO vessel at the mouth of the North Arm and had his boat inspected. The officers asked him to open the 2 coolers he had on deck and his catches were thoroughly inspected. All were within regulation. The officers then ask him to retrieve his backpack and a small suitcase from his cabin so they can inspect that as well. The question I have is does DFO have the authority to inspect the suitcase and the backpack inside the cabin of a boat? Does that not constitute a search of a vessel instead of an inspection therefore would required a search warrant? Moreover, according to the fisheries act, " a DFO officer(a) may open any container that the officer or guardian believes on reasonable grounds contains any fish or other thing in respect of which this Act or the regulations apply"

I understand a cooler is considered a container but what about personal items such as a hand bag/back pack?

Without being there it is difficult to understand the circumstances and comment fully. The officer's asked to see the backpack and the individual complied. If the officer demanded then they would need to show reasonable grounds for the "inspection". Powers of inspection are very different then powers of investigation. They are more broadly interpreted by the courts. If they officers were to believe there were a possibility items they believed would be in the back pack/suit case this would provide them the grounds to inspect. They would need to legally articulate this.

In R. vs Nolet the investigator was conducting and inspection under the motor vehicles act. In the sleeping compartment of the semi trailer the officer noted a back pack. The back pack appeared to have packages similar in shape to stacks of money. The officer noted the vehicle, location and time of night was similar to reports of illegal drug trafficking activity . The officer inspected the bag and found a significant quantity of cash. The vehicle was seized and a false compartment was found in the semi trailer containing the illegal drugs.

The court upheld the officer acted appropriately by retrieving the pack from a sleeping compartment for the inspection.

It all comes down to the specifics of the event and the reasonable application of the powers of inspection.

 

[bgillard]

Without being there it is difficult to understand the circumstances and comment fully. The officer's asked to see the backpack and the individual complied. If the officer demanded then they would need to show reasonable grounds for the "inspection". Powers of inspection are very different then powers of investigation. They are more broadly interpreted by the courts. If they officers were to believe there were a possibility items they believed would be in the back pack/suit case this would provide them the grounds to inspect. They would need to legally articulate this.

In R. vs Nolet the investigator was conducting and inspection under the motor vehicles act. In the sleeping compartment of the semi trailer the officer noted a back pack. The back pack appeared to have packages similar in shape to stacks of money. The officer noted the vehicle, location and time of night was similar to reports of illegal drug trafficking activity . The officer inspected the bag and found a significant quantity of cash. The vehicle was seized and a false compartment was found in the semi trailer containing the illegal drugs.

The court upheld the officer acted appropriately by retrieving the pack from a sleeping compartment for the inspection.

It all comes down to the specifics of the event and the reasonable application of the powers of inspection.

 

[bones]

Conservation officers that are upholding the wildlife act "the most powerful act" can enter your home or anything with out a warrant. The question would are they with DFO or CO's? Lots of times there will be 2 or three from different departments. This way all the bases are covered.

 

[Alex_c]

Either way, better hide the fish whistles if they're digging through your bags!

 

[wildmanyeah]

Only a Lazy fishery officer does not go through you bow locker or cabin or deck locker.

 

[bgillard]

There is lazy and then there is busy. DFO can't catch them all. DFO needs the public help....what's your boat name : )

And yes, Fishery Officers are "Deputy" Conservation Officers with authorities under the Wildlife Act and Fire Arms act. But no... they can't just go through your house. There is "exigent" circumstances but those don't give CO's or FO's the right to breach your constitutionally protected rights for protection from undue search or seizure.

 

[aheny]

If you want to hide extra fish, you'll do it in suitcases, bilge, etc.
I think everything is reasonable during a search of a boat, and I'm confident that searching through your bags and luggage with the intent of looking for fish would be considered reasonable by a judge. Now if he did find drugs or something else it would not be reasonable for him to pass along that information to anybody else.
I do know there is a significant problem with overfishing and keeping juvenile catch of crabs that the north arm of the Fraser, and I'm always glad to see a long extensive search of a 40-foot Charter vessel in that area.

 

[Gong Show]

Warrantless searches are troublesome.

Here is the relevant section of the abovementioned R. v Nolet:

In this case, as events progressed from the police stop to the initial regulatory search of the cab, there was no police invasion of the minimal privacy interest that existed. The officer did not proceed immediately to open the duffle bag without some preliminary evaluation of its likely relevance to the regulatory search. He pushed down on the outside of the bag and felt and heard what seemed like paper, suggesting the existence of items connected to the H&TA inquiry. In the circumstances, it was not unreasonable, given the very limited privacy interest of the accused, for the officer to open the bag. At that point, the cash was in plain view.
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/do...?autocompleteStr=r. v nolet&autocompletePos=1

In my view, the CO or DFO officer had no reasonable excuse to search the backpack and suitcase.

If they were covered in fish scales, that may allow a search.
They could have said that there was something fishy about the backpack, I do not know.

This is why (some) lawyers are important to keep us safe from a police state.

 

[Clint r]

Dont know about today but I used to know a guy who worked for fisheries and he once told me that when they approach a boat for a license/tackle check they will scan it for "irregularities" while asking the standard list of questions. Things like empty beer cans, rolling papers or lighters but no cigarettes lying around or hooks on the dash without pinched barbs ect and will decide from there just how in depth of a search they will do. They can seize your boat and truck so do have plenty of power.

 

[bgillard]

Again, we don't have all the facts to make an informed decision on the matter. You are also forgetting the first comment. The Officer asked to see the pack and the fisherman gave him the pack. What were the grounds? We really don't know because we don't have all the information.

I've searched back packs particularly where I believed there would be the evidence relating to the offence. (knives, gear, cameras with photos on them etc). It all comes down to the facts of the situation.

Here's a real scenario. There are complaints a vessel is harassing marine mammals. The vessel is boarded and a discussion is followed by denials of the activity. The FO reasonably expects to find a camera from which the suspects photographed their activity. Where would you reasonably expect to find the camera/mobile device, possibly in a pack.

I do agree with you about the need to avoid the police state. Criminal and regulatory enforcement can be challenging but boy am I glad it is a difficult job.

.

 

[bgillard]

Clint r. is talking about the test. Boats that are too clean can almost be as bad as boats that are un-kept. You need to know the clients, personality and the problems.

I'm not going to give you all the secretes but the study of human nature can be an effective tool to regulatory enforcement.

 

[eriks]

I have been told that whilst on the water, they (CO's) have immense powers, as they should.
Once you're on land though, my understanding is that they need your permission to search, and they are good at tricking you into giving it to them.
I think Agentaqua is correct, and personally I just wouldn't give permission to search anything, but I wouldn't stop them.
I know how to fish, and don't need barbed hooks.

 

[pescador]

If you have nothing to hide why the big deal?

 

[aheny]

If you have nothing to hide why the big deal?

That argument is the enemy of freedom. Even prosecutors would agree that search requires legal tests to be valid

 

[Towney]

If you have nothing to hide why the big deal?

You have way too much trust for people that strive for power over others.

Let's see you take that stance with a new career prosecutor looking to get the tally going.

 

[SpringVelocity]

If you have nothing to hide why the big deal?

Exactly.